From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Corey <corey@bitworthy.net>
To: "'Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs'" <9fans@9fans.net>
Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2010 19:04:19 -0700
User-Agent: KMail/1.13.2 (Linux/2.6.34-rc4; KDE/4.4.2; i686; ; )
References: <20100416115756.GA1107@polynum.com>
	<201004242314.24052.corey@bitworthy.net>
	<000001cae48b$1ca3bbc0$55eb3340$@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <000001cae48b$1ca3bbc0$55eb3340$@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <201004251904.20025.corey@bitworthy.net>
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
  charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: [9fans] [PlanX] Re:  Mars Needs Women
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 0e003420-ead6-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025


Disclaimer: If this conversation/thread is a continued annoyance, please=20
at least consider the tactic of simply ignoring it - I've placed "[PlanX]" =
in=20
the subject to make it easy for people to filter.=20

Also:  [long]

On Sunday 25 April 2010 08:22:24 Patrick Kelly wrote:
> > The goal of the "Plan X" thought experiment was to query 9fans for
> > others who might also be interested in collaboration and discussion
> > regarding new and novel uses for Plan 9 os technologies.
>=20
> Then experiment!
>

I _am_ experimenting!   (c8=3D

Silently on my own I'm engaged in the sort of ruggedly independent,
lone cowboy style research and development which defines 9fans'=20
standard operating procedure. (in this instance, it involves reducing=20
the Blender 2.5 codebase down to the minimal core UI/WM framework[*],=20
for the purpose of prototyping a possible alternative Plan 9 user interface)

However, the "Plan X" experiment (which was intended to occur
asynchronously to my solitarily-confined efforts), _specifically_ revolves=
=20
around the idea of attempting to churn out some discussion and collaboration
_before_ attempting to produce anything.


Digression:
Interfering with the above concept, is the communally-held 9fans axiom
that:

Talk - Action =3D Zero
(which is of course sometimes true)

The problem is that ++Talk does not always mean Action--=20
(hello Captain Obvious)

When a project (or potential project) requires advice and experience=20
that crosses boundaries over a variety of perspectives and skillsets, a=20
front-loaded collaboration period is a logical and reasonable approach.

Before anything, "Plan X" is/was conceptualized as initially bootstrapping
itself as a thinktank.=20
=20
A "thinktank" comprised of a single individual battling through the flame
drizzles of a sensitive/reactionary social environment and/or twiddling his
thumbs on a mostly empty mailing list is...suboptimal

But, so it goes - the idea hasn't so far produced more than a few interested
parties (who've all chosen to respond offlist). I'm willing to give it "the
'ol college try"... but I'm certainly not stubborn enough to continue in the
face of near total adversity.=20

> So far you've just gotten into philosophical arguments
> rather than scientific discussion.
>=20

The irony here is that the philosophical arguments are largely a simple res=
ult
of me attempting to carefully confront the usual battery of misunderstandin=
gs=20
and assumptions and defense-mechanisms.

Despite my best efforts, I'm still seeing folks inferring or projecting the
following fallacies:

* I'm being a troll who's objective is to embroil people in arguments
* I'm being a motormouth who wants nothing more than to gab on and on
* I'm trying/hoping to change 9fans culture in my own image
* I'm trying/hoping to change Plan 9 'proper' according to my own notions
* I'm trying/hoping to convince other people to do work on my behalf

I'm doing my absolute best to make myself understood, while attempting to=20
avoid unnecessary conflict and irrelevant sub-flames.=20

> > I think there's lot's of potential out there for Plan 9 in "Consumer
> > Space"... I honestly thought that I might see more folks interested in
> > imagining what glenda looks like outside of the research and data
> > center[1].
>=20
> Yes there is, so why do you need a fork? Plan 9 would and will suffice.
>=20

I'd prefer not to narrowly frame things in terms of my own personal needs.=
=20

"Plan X" is more about discussing potential areas of interest with others;
for the purpose of possibly identifying a common subset of software that,
if intelligently and selectively implemented, would more easily facilitate
new vectors of research and development that are currently made difficult=20
or effectively impossible for most mere mortals due to missing or
inadequate/inappropriate toolchains, libraries and/or toolkits.


> I have enough time to write a complete tool chain, and develop a system
> that is similar to Plan 9.
>

That is very cool, and I'd certainly like to hear more, if you're inclined =
to
provide further detail.

> The difference between you and I, is that I
> just start working on the project and talk later; you talk first and then
> work when you can find enough people to minimize the work you have to do.
>=20

Another digression:
I don't think that is quite what the difference between us is.

Before you start working on a project, you _think_ about the various ways=20
in which you might approach and implement things, right?

If you choose not to socially brainstorm and collaborate with others before
actively engaging on the implementation of any given project - then I can
only imagine it's because you're confident that you are sufficiently equipp=
ed
with the necessary breadth and depth of skills, abilities and knowledges
needed to effectively and efficiently fulfill the range of requirements
necessary to complete your intended project.

If I was a jealous person, I'd probably feel a bit envious of your talents.

So, to get back to the point: I think the difference between you and I, is
that you have a broader and deeper spectrum of core competencies than=20
myself. Clearly: you're able to produce a complete tool chain and develop=20
a system that is similar to Plan 9, but more suited to your own requirement=
s,
all by yourself.


> > > Imagine running the Linux kernel and all of regular GNU, with all the
> > > Plan 9's sweetness patched in.
>=20
> My imagination may be a tad strange, but I see an obese chimera, currently
> a mixture of the gnu, penguin, and bunny. A step in the right direction
> isn't adding Plan 9 goodness to Linux, it's stripping the badness out; but
> that=E2=80=99s an argument best suited for Glendix people.
>=20

I agree (though, not to disparage the Glendix project - I think it is a use=
ful
additional trajectory for Plan 9 technologies ).

> > Personally, I think carefully identifying, then porting/forking just a
> > few, _select_ pieces of software from the *nix space, then maintained
> > natively in an alternative Plan 9 based distribution, is a more
> > interesting and direct route.
> >=20
> > Unfortunately - that means noisy discussion and collaboration amongst
> > people from a variety perspectives and skillsets/experience. Which is
> > anathema to 9fans lone-ranger aesthetics.
>=20
> Not at all an anathema, I understand what you're suggesting completely. I
> just feel it's foolish and you haven't proved me wrong yet.
>=20

I strongly disagree that the idea is inherently foolish - in fact I think t=
hat
the general idea is demonstrably sound - but I simply have no motivation
or inclination to attempt to prove you wrong by debating subjective,=20
personal opinions/experiences:

The only way to approximate something that could be taken as a semblance
of 'proof', would first require that some sort of "Plan X" analog actually
manifested itself - whether it was a foolish experiment in futility or not
would depend on seeing what sorts of social and technical artifacts resulted
after a reasonable measure of time.


> I would like to keep Plan 9 from going down the same road UNIX went down.
>

Understood, and agreed.

But remember:=20

Plan 9 is completely independent of Plan X - though Plan X is not necessari=
ly
independent of Plan 9.

It does not follow that Plan X will cause Plan 9 to degenerate into UNIX.


> Now one could argue that many of us are too much against that change,=20
>

I respect, admire, and fully appreciate the motivations behind Plan 9's=20
intrinsic conservatism.


> but so far Plan 9 has had everything needed and is still sane.
>=20

If Plan 9 has had everything that's needed and is perfectly sane - then why
was Inferno produced? The point there is not to imply that Plan 9 is lackin=
g -
but rather to assert that different use-cases have different sets of needs,
and thus different requirements, and thus different perspectives of what
constitutes "complete, and sane".=20

And did Plan 9 loose simplicity and sanity upon Inferno's entrance onto the
playing field?


> There's never been a reason people couldn't create forks or derivatives,
> just because we don't "like change", doesn't mean a separate code base
> couldn't be changed.
<snip>
> [...] we are in this amazing age where cloning is possible, so create a
> 'clone' and do what you please.
>

Of course. =20

I'm confused though, because earlier you stated:

"so why do you need a fork? Plan 9 would and will suffice."

<snip>
> The way many of us treat Plan 9, is paternal. We don't want to see our ba=
by
> gluttonizing on any code base she can get her hands on and we don't want
> her shooting up the drug that is the FSF.=20
>=20

Again, Plan X is not Plan 9 'proper' (the official distribution).

In fact, "Plan X" is specifically for the purpose of facilitating _various_
eXperimental/eXploratory eXpressions of alternative Plan 9 based operating
environments than what is desired and possible within the official
distribution.

Cheers, and kind regards


[*] (Blender 2.5 UI footnote from the beginning of this post):

Reference material for those interested:

http://www.blender.org/development/release-logs/blender-250/updated-gui/
http://www.blender.org/development/release-logs/blender-250/custom-keyboard-
shortcuts/

http://wiki.blender.org/index.php/Doc:2.5/Manual#Starting

http://wiki.blender.org/index.php/Dev:2.5/
http://wiki.blender.org/index.php/Dev:2.5/Source/UI